Started By
Message

re: CBO: Trump’s Tariffs Could Slash Deficit by $4 Trillion

Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:08 am to
Posted by Seldom Seen
Member since Feb 2016
48737 posts
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:08 am to
Posted by BCreed1
Alabama
Member since Jan 2024
6976 posts
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:11 am to
quote:

says who?



The all knowing SFP!




quote:

How the frick can you post that number and not link where it came from?


He did the quick math in his big brain.


Come on now. You know SLP is the brightest among us. I'm not sure how the world ever got along with out his knowledge on EVERYTHING.

Posted by GRTiger
On a roof eating alligator pie
Member since Dec 2008
70955 posts
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:11 am to
quote:

it's in the OP. It's the entire premise of the "article".



No it isn't. It does mention $3.3t, but the part where all of it will be direct taxes on American citizens was Slow's ignorant editorial. Which apparently you agree with.

Eta
This was also in the article

quote:

The CBO projection also highlighted that the added revenue from Trump’s tariffs would help counterbalance the effects of the Republicans’ tax-cut and spending bill passed earlier this year.

That legislation, scored by CBO as adding $3.4 trillion to deficits over the next ten year


So the "cost" of tax breaks exceeds the revenue from tariffs. Even in the dumb hypothetical that all tariff rev will come from your pocket, it's more than compensated by the tax cuts Trump is pushing.
This post was edited on 9/3/25 at 9:14 am
Posted by SlayTime
Member since Jan 2025
3738 posts
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:11 am to
quote:

While raising the cost to consumers over that time by $3.3 trillion The interest payments would be the net gain. $700B over 10 years, or $70B/year. Napkin math. But you get the gist


Divorce lawyer economics folks. Only thing missing is who gets the credit card points.
Posted by Grumpy Nemesis
Member since Feb 2025
2033 posts
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:12 am to
quote:

SlowFlowPro

You're bad enough as a lawyer so you should probably stay focused on that
Posted by Grumpy Nemesis
Member since Feb 2025
2033 posts
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:13 am to
quote:



He presumes 100% of the tariffs will be passed on to consumers.
which is a fricking stupid presumption typical of the kind that would be made by a fourth grader
Posted by Grumpy Nemesis
Member since Feb 2025
2033 posts
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:14 am to
quote:


Some are still holding out because they think that admin will continue to blink

So in other words you acknowledge your math was bullshite thanks
Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
298383 posts
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:16 am to
This isnt new money in the system, its just re-distribution of wealth.

Posted by oklahogjr
Gold Membership
Member since Jan 2010
40237 posts
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:16 am to
quote:

Thats a useless stat. The point is to stop buying that product made overseas. You don't HAVE to buy that same priduct.


No that would cause this forecast to be wrong. If you stop buying tarrifs stop coming in. Americans must pay this extra tax on foreign goods otherwise there's no benefit to deficit.


I'm loving how tax and spend Democrat policies are popular here now. It's downright fascinating
Posted by Ingeniero
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2013
22996 posts
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:17 am to
Businesses are just going to suck it up and absorb the cost out of the goodness of their hearts. They love America THAT much!
Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
298383 posts
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:17 am to
quote:

The point is to stop buying that product made overseas.


Not feasible.

Posted by BCreed1
Alabama
Member since Jan 2024
6976 posts
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:18 am to
quote:

it's not a 1 for one increase. the cost of most items imported is going up bit not the full % of the tariff. companies are still trying to keep market share while they are trying to figure out moving more production domestically to avoid the tariffs.



Yep! The turth is no foreign company is wanting to give up the USA consumer. It's a death blow to them. They make a product at $10 cost, sell it for $15 to the importer and the importer sells that to the consumer for $30.

Now you have a 10% tariff. The company can either give up the market share, or adjust. That 10% is $1.50. The company can eat that, still make profit while maintaining their market share. OR they can split it with the importer. .75cents each.




Posted by GRTiger
On a roof eating alligator pie
Member since Dec 2008
70955 posts
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:25 am to
(no message)
This post was edited on 9/3/25 at 9:26 am
Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
298383 posts
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:27 am to
quote:


Yep! The turth is no foreign company is wanting to give up the USA consumer.


There are economic realities they cannot ignore, genius.

You'll either pay a lot more for your products or you'll get far less products to choose from.
Posted by Taxing Authority
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
63261 posts
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:28 am to
quote:

So the "cost" of tax breaks exceeds the revenue from tariffs. Even in the dumb hypothetical that all tariff rev will come from your pocket, it's more than compensated by the tax cuts Trump is pushing.

You’re presuming that tax breaks and tariffs are enacted on the same people. In many cases they are not. It also tells you the money is already “spent” in the form of tax breaks. So how ill the same $1 “pay” for tax breaks and reduce the deficit at the same time?
Posted by GRTiger
On a roof eating alligator pie
Member since Dec 2008
70955 posts
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:29 am to
We're all presuming quite a bit when it comes to consumption costs 10 years out.
Posted by wackatimesthree
Member since Oct 2019
13359 posts
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:31 am to
quote:

says who?



Simple math.

Again, I don't understand how y'all can not comprehend that money doesn't just appear out of no where.
Posted by Taxing Authority
Houston
Member since Feb 2010
63261 posts
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:31 am to
quote:

We're all presuming quite a bit when it comes to consumption costs 10 years out.
Fair point. We all know Congress will spend every marginal dime it takes in and more.
Posted by Kjnstkmn
Vermilion Parish
Member since Aug 2020
21837 posts
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:39 am to
Posted by wackatimesthree
Member since Oct 2019
13359 posts
Posted on 9/3/25 at 9:43 am to
quote:

He presumes 100% of the tariffs will be passed on to consumers.
which is a fricking stupid presumption typical of the kind that would be made by a fourth grader


It will be, and the ones too stupid to understand that are y'all.

Again (and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again) "passing the costs along to consumers" doesn't have to just look like raising prices.

It can look like cancelling expansion plans (which costs the economy jobs), freezing raises and promotions (which causes wage stagnation), laying people off (costs jobs), etc., etc. and here's the thing that I suppose you guys are simply too stupid to comprehend...even if companies do NONE of those things (which they will, but for the sake of being stupid so that maybe you can understand), even if they don't react at all and just choose to become less profitable, that still costs consumers because the stock market will react to the lowered profitability. I guess there will be some Americans that it doesn't affect if they have no retirement vehicles that involve stocks, but that is the segment of the population that everyone else is already paying for, so...

There's no way to avoid this, as many times as you close your eyes and click your heels together with your ruby slippers and say, "There's no guy like Trump."

You can't make 2 + 2 = 2. There's no way to do it. There's no magic wand you can wave to make that happen.

Every dollar you siphon out of the system actually comes out of the system...it's not like Schrodinger's Cat that comes out if the observer wants it to but stays in if the observer wants it to.

It comes out in some way. Either higher prices, wage stagnation, the loss of jobs, loss of earnings in the market. You can't pull a rabbit out of a hat and the rabbit still be in the hat.

Why do y'all refuse to acknowledge that?
Jump to page
Page 1 2 3 4 5 ... 11
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 11Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram